Remote turrets are enclosed structures with all the subsystems like the ammunition feed chutes, ammo boxes and drives are inside an armored cocoon. On the other hand RWS have an open architecture.

Remote Turrets offer an important advantage of reloading under armor whereas in most of the RWS's, the crew has to get outside to reload ammunition.

Remote Turret Classification

However remote turrets have some drawbacks based on the crew being located inside the hull. Main item being total dependency on the sensors/electro-optics. During operations, the the commander's capability to crack open the hatch and have a look around the vicinity provides a big advantage in terms of situational awereness.

In addition, the sighting systems in the remote turrets, cannot include direct view optics, which is also avery important for some armies such as British Army.Another issue for the remote turrets is the difficulty of the gunner losing the feeling on the turret/barrel orientation. The gunner is located inside the hull and his sensory feedback only feels the vehicle accelerations; thus after a short while it is not uncommon for the gunner to start having difficulties on where the turret is oriented with respect to the vehicle, especially when the stabilization is turned on.This can be overcome by utilizing easy to understand indications on the gunner's display; however still requires careful design.

One of the good articles I was reading was from the Australian Defence Technology by Ian Bostock with the title of "Pointers hint at unmanned future for CRV turret".

One of the points in the article states that Remote Turrets offer significant weight savings (the article says 1.200 to 2.000kg's) compared with a manned turret with equivalent protection levels.

I have to disagree with this statement.

Suppose you are converting a two-men turret to a remote turret keeping the protection level the same ie. STANAG 4569 Level IV. The structural elements and equipment you can totally eliminate in a remote turret are:

Hatch mechanisms (hinges, locks, handles, etc.)

Periscopes

Spall liners (if present on the 2 men turret)

Basket structure

Seats

Also for the remote turret, you have the option to reduce the ring diameter from a generally accepted value of around 1.5-1.6m in a two men turret to a ring around 1m diameter. This would help you reduce the weight of the ring gear (or slewing ring in other words).

On the other hand, you still have to put two seats inside the vehicle for the commander and gunner. Also the displays, handles, structural elements for these still have to be located inside the vehicle. So these are weight-wise not totally eliminated albeit some reduction in the volume invaded compared with the basket swept volume for a manned turret.

However, the ammunition boxes for the main gun and the coax gun that were generally in the basket for the two-men turret have to be relocated to the turret hull. The former 2 men turret hull did not include these, so it usually means you have to increase the turret hull size to accommodate the ammo boxes. The following images shows the ammobox size for a 30mm turret with linked and linkless ammunition types. These ammo boxes takes up considerable volume inside the turret hull for a remote turret.

The AmmoBox for 30mm Turret (GD Mk46)

Linkless Ammunition Feed System with Two 75 Round Ammo Boxes on Each Side of 30mm Cannon

As size means more surface area and more surface area means weight, you dont get to save that much weight by converting to a remote turret.

AmmoBox inside the hull for a remote turret

Also, for the remote turrets, the turret cutout on the vehicle roof has to be covered by a hatch. This also adds weight.

The result shows, you usually dont save significant amount of weight with a remote turret having the same protection level as a two men turret.

However, the trick is reducing the protection level for the remote turret considering the fact that there is no crew inside. This approach would pave the way for weight reduction.

So, in my opinion, the remote turrets although offer some advantages are not the perfect solution to replace all the other turrets.

The correct answer probably lies in the configuration and mission of the vehicle, such as:

If the vehicle is a pure IFV that is going to go head to head with the enemy vehicles, two men turrets offering more situational awereness and control over the battlefield would have a definite advantage.

If the vehicle is a reconnaissance vehicle that is to be used for recon-with-fire principle, again the two-men turrets offer more advantages for situational awereness.

For a reconnaisance platform relying more on electro-optics and sensors, you will need more room inside the vehicle for operators, more displays, consoles, etc. Remote turrets should be preferred.

For a command platform, again you need more room inside for command consoles, communication equipment, etc. Remote turrets would be a better solution.

4 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I think your analysis is mostly correct but your not thinking forward enough. Future IFV/Tank crewmen will where VR headset that will allow them to see through tank walls via a multitude of cameras placed around the vehicles hull (same tech that the F-35 uses). If they see something interesting they will look at the object and click a button to orientate a more powerful optic on it. If they want to destroy that object they will look at that object and click another button to fire the remote turret. Vehicles C4I system will also display inside the VR headset. The C4I system will highlight friendly units to help prevent friendly fire.

With this tech you don't need have men inside the turret to maintain situational awareness.

You might think what I wrote is a since fiction novel but you already see this tech in the Kaplan-20 IFVhttp://tankandafvnews.com/2015/05/08/new-turkish-kaplan-20-ifv-unveiled/

Thanks for your comment!So if the future would be like F35 with the helmet mounted displays, the question would be the why F35 still have a glass canopy instead of covering the pilot with armor since he has everything he needs on his helmet display?...

<<<...why F35 still have a glass canopy instead of covering the pilot with armor since he has everything he needs on his helmet display?>>>

I would suggest taking just a small fraction of your impressive knowledge base and devoting it to combat aircraft design. If you did, you’d likely already have an answer to your question. I understand though that you are a ground guy through and through, so I’ll share my thoughts.

There are so many reasons why they wouldn't do that I’m not sure where to start:-- No one is saying that there still isn't an advantage to being able to look somewhere with your own two eyes. Even a "high" definition image is not going to be as good as "real" definition view. Even if you have virtual IR and Day/Night views, it's still helpful to have a real view.-- Most importantly, it's helpful to have a backup view. If a pilot's virtual display goes out and he can't look outside, he's in bad situation (hopefully there's the possibility of a zero visibility instrument landing, but even so, he's out of the fight). If an IFV/tank gunner's virtual display goes out, he just tells the commander to take the gunner’s duties while he tries to fix the problem. If the commander's display goes out, it's pretty much the reverse. If the driver's display goes out, he just slows to a stop and they try to fix it.-- It's also about whether there are downsides of not being under armor. - Risk of not being under armor in an IFV/tank? A very realistic chance of catching a bullet in the brain. (Note that I'm dismissing the glass periscopes which, though they may sometimes be very clear, have a horribly small view.)- Risk of not being under armor in a Fighter jet? Not much at all, given that they aren't dog fighting with machines guns anymore nor dealing with skies full of flak. -- IFV/tanks are much much much more likely to get hit with fire than a fighter, and an IFV/tank can take a lot of smaller weapons fire and still potentially function fine. If a fighter gets hit at all, then something has really gone wrong. Even if the pilot were under armor (the lower cockpit may already have a very small amount of armor...I don't know), it will only be for the pilot and only to save his life, not to save the plane (though saving the pilot could save the plane if it can still fly). If a fighter gets hit today, it's likely to be something big and not survivable for a plane densely packed with electronics and hydraulics.-- Adding a few hundred extra pounds of armor to an IFV/tank isn't worth batting an eye. Adding that to a fighter can make at least a noticeable difference, particularly over the lifetime use and costs of the aircraft. It’s just not worth putting more than a tiny amount of armor on an aircraft, and thankfully, with today’s tactics and mission profiles they are able to avoid the need for it.